Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小，
##   (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levels

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 2501	control, N = 1251	treatment, N = 1251	p-value2
age	250	51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75)	50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75)	51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75)	0.559
gender	250				0.327
f		204 (82%)	99 (79%)	105 (84%)
m		46 (18%)	26 (21%)	20 (16%)
occupation	250				0.711
day_training		6 (2.4%)	2 (1.6%)	4 (3.2%)
full_time		29 (12%)	14 (11%)	15 (12%)
homemaker		32 (13%)	15 (12%)	17 (14%)
other		4 (1.6%)	1 (0.8%)	3 (2.4%)
part_time		43 (17%)	23 (18%)	20 (16%)
retired		61 (24%)	28 (22%)	33 (26%)
self_employ		8 (3.2%)	4 (3.2%)	4 (3.2%)
shelter		4 (1.6%)	4 (3.2%)	0 (0%)
student		4 (1.6%)	2 (1.6%)	2 (1.6%)
t_and_e		4 (1.6%)	3 (2.4%)	1 (0.8%)
unemploy		55 (22%)	29 (23%)	26 (21%)
marital	250				0.776
cohabitation		2 (0.8%)	0 (0%)	2 (1.6%)
divore		27 (11%)	15 (12%)	12 (9.6%)
in_relationship		6 (2.4%)	4 (3.2%)	2 (1.6%)
married		76 (30%)	35 (28%)	41 (33%)
none		117 (47%)	59 (47%)	58 (46%)
seperation		3 (1.2%)	2 (1.6%)	1 (0.8%)
widow		19 (7.6%)	10 (8.0%)	9 (7.2%)
edu	250				0.690
bachelor		54 (22%)	24 (19%)	30 (24%)
diploma		42 (17%)	25 (20%)	17 (14%)
hd_ad		6 (2.4%)	4 (3.2%)	2 (1.6%)
none		1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.8%)
postgraduate		17 (6.8%)	9 (7.2%)	8 (6.4%)
primary		22 (8.8%)	9 (7.2%)	13 (10%)
secondary_1_3		29 (12%)	17 (14%)	12 (9.6%)
secondary_4_5		66 (26%)	31 (25%)	35 (28%)
secondary_6_7		13 (5.2%)	6 (4.8%)	7 (5.6%)
fam_income	250
10001_12000		10 (4.0%)	3 (2.4%)	7 (5.6%)
12001_14000		12 (4.8%)	4 (3.2%)	8 (6.4%)
14001_16000		12 (4.8%)	4 (3.2%)	8 (6.4%)
16001_18000		5 (2.0%)	3 (2.4%)	2 (1.6%)
18001_20000		12 (4.8%)	8 (6.4%)	4 (3.2%)
20001_above		43 (17%)	26 (21%)	17 (14%)
2001_4000		37 (15%)	18 (14%)	19 (15%)
4001_6000		31 (12%)	14 (11%)	17 (14%)
6001_8000		22 (8.8%)	13 (10%)	9 (7.2%)
8001_10000		20 (8.0%)	11 (8.8%)	9 (7.2%)
below_2000		46 (18%)	21 (17%)	25 (20%)
medication	250	224 (90%)	112 (90%)	112 (90%)	>0.999
onset_duration	250	15.13 ± 11.18 (0 - 63)	14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56)	15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63)	0.814
onset_age	250	36.04 ± 14.80 (-18 - 72)	35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72)	36.37 ± 15.65 (-18 - 68)	0.732
diagnosis_schizophrenia	250	50 (20%)	25 (20%)	25 (20%)	>0.999
diagnosis_delusional	250	13 (5.2%)	7 (5.6%)	6 (4.8%)	0.776
diagnosis_schizoaffective	250	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.8%)	>0.999
diagnosis_schizoid	250	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.8%)	>0.999
diagnosis_transient_psychotic	250	2 (0.8%)	1 (0.8%)	1 (0.8%)	>0.999
diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic	250
no		250 (100%)	125 (100%)	125 (100%)
diagnosis_depression	250	138 (55%)	69 (55%)	69 (55%)	>0.999
diagnosis_bipolar	250	24 (9.6%)	10 (8.0%)	14 (11%)	0.390
diagnosis_anxiety	250	87 (35%)	46 (37%)	41 (33%)	0.507
diagnosis_phobia	250	10 (4.0%)	3 (2.4%)	7 (5.6%)	0.197
diagnosis_personality_disorders	250	3 (1.2%)	0 (0%)	3 (2.4%)	0.247
diagnosis_substance_related_addictive	250	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.8%)	>0.999
diagnosis_other	250	29 (12%)	17 (14%)	12 (9.6%)	0.323
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 2501	control, N = 1251	treatment, N = 1251	p-value2
recovery_stage_a	250	3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)	3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)	3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)	0.406
recovery_stage_b	250	17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24)	17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24)	17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24)	0.835
ras_confidence	250	29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45)	29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45)	30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45)	0.637
ras_willingness	250	11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15)	11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15)	11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15)	0.905
ras_goal	250	17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25)	17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)	17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)	0.413
ras_reliance	250	13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20)	13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20)	13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20)	0.614
ras_domination	250	9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15)	9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)	9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15)	0.206
symptom	250	30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70)	31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70)	30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56)	0.301
slof_work	250	22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30)	22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30)	22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30)	0.989
slof_relationship	250	24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35)	24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35)	25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35)	0.252
satisfaction	250	20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35)	19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35)	21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35)	0.136
mhc_emotional	250	10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19)	10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18)	11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19)	0.459
mhc_social	250	15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30)	15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30)	15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30)	>0.999
mhc_psychological	250	21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36)	21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36)	21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36)	0.715
resilisnce	250	16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)	16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30)	16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30)	0.177
social_provision	250	13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20)	13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)	13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20)	0.032
els_value_living	250	16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25)	16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25)	17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25)	0.331
els_life_fulfill	250	12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20)	12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20)	13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20)	0.100
els	250	29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45)	29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45)	30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45)	0.154
social_connect	250	27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48)	27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48)	26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48)	0.293
shs_agency	250	14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24)	13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)	14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24)	0.110
shs_pathway	250	15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24)	15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24)	16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24)	0.057
shs	250	30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48)	29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48)	31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48)	0.070
esteem	250	12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20)	12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20)	12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20)	0.732
mlq_search	250	14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21)	14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21)	15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21)	0.105
mlq_presence	250	13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21)	13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21)	13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21)	0.396
mlq	250	28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42)	27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42)	28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42)	0.183
empower	250	19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)	18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30)	19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)	0.351
ismi_resistance	250	14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20)	14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20)	14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)	0.981
ismi_discrimation	250	11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20)	11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20)	11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20)	0.823
sss_affective	250	10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18)	10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)	10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)	0.629
sss_behavior	250	10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)	10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18)	10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)	0.867
sss_cognitive	250	8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)	8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)	9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)	0.402
sss	250	29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54)	29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)	29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)	0.682
1Mean ± SD (Range)
2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group	Characteristic	Beta	SE1	95% CI1	p-value
recovery_stage_a	(Intercept)	3.20	0.109	2.99, 3.41
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.128	0.154	-0.429, 0.173	0.405
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.028	0.132	-0.230, 0.287	0.829
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.192	0.190	-0.180, 0.565	0.313
	Pseudo R square	0.004
recovery_stage_b	(Intercept)	17.9	0.268	17.4, 18.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.080	0.379	-0.823, 0.663	0.833
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.128	0.238	-0.595, 0.339	0.591
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.968	0.345	0.292, 1.64	0.005
	Pseudo R square	0.013
ras_confidence	(Intercept)	29.7	0.503	28.7, 30.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.336	0.711	-1.06, 1.73	0.637
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.715	0.386	-0.041, 1.47	0.065
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.972	0.559	-0.124, 2.07	0.084
	Pseudo R square	0.017
ras_willingness	(Intercept)	11.6	0.183	11.3, 12.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.032	0.258	-0.474, 0.538	0.901
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.044	0.170	-0.289, 0.377	0.797
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.259	0.246	-0.223, 0.741	0.294
	Pseudo R square	0.004
ras_goal	(Intercept)	17.2	0.289	16.6, 17.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.344	0.409	-0.457, 1.15	0.401
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.453	0.247	-0.032, 0.937	0.068
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.352	0.358	-0.350, 1.05	0.327
	Pseudo R square	0.015
ras_reliance	(Intercept)	13.1	0.262	12.6, 13.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.184	0.371	-0.543, 0.911	0.620
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.376	0.201	-0.018, 0.770	0.063
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.269	0.291	-0.302, 0.840	0.357
	Pseudo R square	0.010
ras_domination	(Intercept)	9.95	0.215	9.53, 10.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.392	0.303	-0.987, 0.203	0.197
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.102	0.205	-0.299, 0.503	0.618
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.738	0.296	0.158, 1.32	0.013
	Pseudo R square	0.015
symptom	(Intercept)	31.5	0.877	29.8, 33.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.29	1.241	-3.72, 1.14	0.300
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.45	0.623	-2.67, -0.224	0.021
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.099	0.903	-1.87, 1.67	0.913
	Pseudo R square	0.010
slof_work	(Intercept)	22.1	0.409	21.3, 22.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.008	0.579	-1.14, 1.13	0.989
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.448	0.334	-0.206, 1.10	0.181
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.095	0.484	-0.852, 1.04	0.844
	Pseudo R square	0.003
slof_relationship	(Intercept)	24.5	0.513	23.5, 25.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.840	0.725	-0.582, 2.26	0.248
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.488	0.404	-0.305, 1.28	0.229
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.211	0.586	-0.937, 1.36	0.719
	Pseudo R square	0.009
satisfaction	(Intercept)	19.7	0.643	18.4, 20.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.37	0.909	-0.414, 3.15	0.134
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.23	0.472	0.301, 2.15	0.010
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.058	0.683	-1.28, 1.40	0.932
	Pseudo R square	0.016
mhc_emotional	(Intercept)	10.6	0.336	9.99, 11.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.352	0.475	-0.580, 1.28	0.459
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.444	0.250	-0.045, 0.933	0.077
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.047	0.362	-0.756, 0.662	0.897
	Pseudo R square	0.005
mhc_social	(Intercept)	15.1	0.543	14.1, 16.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.000	0.769	-1.51, 1.51	1.00
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.720	0.408	-0.080, 1.52	0.079
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.457	0.592	-0.703, 1.62	0.441
	Pseudo R square	0.006
mhc_psychological	(Intercept)	21.6	0.630	20.3, 22.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.320	0.891	-1.43, 2.07	0.720
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.11	0.457	0.216, 2.01	0.016
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.120	0.662	-1.42, 1.18	0.856
	Pseudo R square	0.006
resilisnce	(Intercept)	16.2	0.387	15.4, 16.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.760	0.548	-0.314, 1.83	0.166
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.654	0.336	-0.005, 1.31	0.053
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.470	0.487	-0.484, 1.42	0.336
	Pseudo R square	0.023
social_provision	(Intercept)	13.2	0.250	12.7, 13.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.744	0.354	0.050, 1.44	0.036
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.041	0.197	-0.426, 0.344	0.836
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.380	0.285	-0.178, 0.938	0.183
	Pseudo R square	0.028
els_value_living	(Intercept)	16.8	0.284	16.2, 17.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.392	0.402	-0.396, 1.18	0.330
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.375	0.222	-0.061, 0.810	0.093
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.262	0.322	-0.369, 0.893	0.416
	Pseudo R square	0.013
els_life_fulfill	(Intercept)	12.4	0.294	11.8, 13.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.696	0.416	-0.119, 1.51	0.095
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.323	0.212	-0.092, 0.738	0.129
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.153	0.307	-0.449, 0.755	0.618
	Pseudo R square	0.017
els	(Intercept)	29.2	0.538	28.1, 30.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.09	0.761	-0.403, 2.58	0.154
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.694	0.371	-0.033, 1.42	0.063
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.431	0.538	-0.622, 1.49	0.423
	Pseudo R square	0.017
social_connect	(Intercept)	27.9	0.820	26.3, 29.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.22	1.159	-3.49, 1.06	0.295
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.683	0.590	-1.84, 0.473	0.248
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.26	0.855	-2.94, 0.415	0.142
	Pseudo R square	0.015
shs_agency	(Intercept)	13.8	0.445	13.0, 14.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.01	0.629	-0.225, 2.24	0.110
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.350	0.328	-0.293, 0.993	0.287
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.536	0.475	-0.395, 1.47	0.261
	Pseudo R square	0.019
shs_pathway	(Intercept)	15.3	0.361	14.6, 16.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.01	0.511	0.007, 2.01	0.049
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.588	0.288	0.023, 1.15	0.043
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.232	0.417	-0.585, 1.05	0.578
	Pseudo R square	0.025
shs	(Intercept)	29.2	0.767	27.7, 30.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.02	1.085	-0.111, 4.14	0.064
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.935	0.560	-0.163, 2.03	0.097
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.779	0.812	-0.811, 2.37	0.338
	Pseudo R square	0.024
esteem	(Intercept)	12.8	0.142	12.5, 13.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.072	0.201	-0.466, 0.322	0.721
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.134	0.153	-0.434, 0.166	0.381
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.176	0.221	-0.257, 0.609	0.427
	Pseudo R square	0.001
mlq_search	(Intercept)	14.4	0.309	13.8, 15.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.720	0.437	-0.136, 1.58	0.100
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.727	0.299	0.141, 1.31	0.016
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.809	0.433	-1.66, 0.039	0.063
	Pseudo R square	0.008
mlq_presence	(Intercept)	13.2	0.379	12.4, 13.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.464	0.535	-0.585, 1.51	0.387
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.607	0.320	-0.020, 1.23	0.059
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.185	0.464	-0.723, 1.09	0.690
	Pseudo R square	0.011
mlq	(Intercept)	27.5	0.618	26.3, 28.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.18	0.873	-0.528, 2.90	0.176
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.33	0.536	0.280, 2.38	0.014
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.606	0.776	-2.13, 0.916	0.436
	Pseudo R square	0.010
empower	(Intercept)	18.8	0.405	18.1, 19.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.528	0.573	-0.596, 1.65	0.358
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.861	0.318	0.238, 1.48	0.007
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.029	0.461	-0.875, 0.932	0.950
	Pseudo R square	0.012
ismi_resistance	(Intercept)	14.4	0.222	13.9, 14.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.008	0.314	-0.624, 0.608	0.980
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.206	0.225	-0.235, 0.647	0.362
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.448	0.325	-0.189, 1.09	0.170
	Pseudo R square	0.010
ismi_discrimation	(Intercept)	11.8	0.275	11.3, 12.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.088	0.389	-0.850, 0.674	0.821
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.410	0.262	-0.923, 0.103	0.119
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.423	0.379	-1.17, 0.319	0.265
	Pseudo R square	0.013
sss_affective	(Intercept)	10.4	0.325	9.76, 11.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.224	0.460	-0.677, 1.12	0.626
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.321	0.241	-0.792, 0.150	0.183
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.606	0.349	-1.29, 0.077	0.084
	Pseudo R square	0.009
sss_behavior	(Intercept)	10.2	0.333	9.52, 10.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.080	0.471	-1.00, 0.844	0.865
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.469	0.249	-0.956, 0.019	0.061
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.266	0.360	-0.972, 0.440	0.461
	Pseudo R square	0.007
sss_cognitive	(Intercept)	8.71	0.335	8.06, 9.37
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.408	0.474	-0.520, 1.34	0.390
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.239	0.246	-0.721, 0.244	0.333
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.665	0.357	-1.36, 0.035	0.064
	Pseudo R square	0.008
sss	(Intercept)	29.3	0.937	27.5, 31.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.552	1.325	-2.04, 3.15	0.677
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.04	0.622	-2.26, 0.177	0.095
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.49	0.903	-3.26, 0.280	0.100
	Pseudo R square	0.008
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.33) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.36e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(451) = 29.47, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(451) = -0.83, p = 0.405; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.29], t(451) = 0.22, p = 0.829; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.24])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.56], t(451) = 1.01, p = 0.312; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.47])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(451) = 66.71, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.66], t(451) = -0.21, p = 0.833; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.34], t(451) = -0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.11])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [0.29, 1.64], t(451) = 2.81, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [0.10, 0.56])

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.70, 30.67], t(451) = 59.04, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.73], t(451) = 0.47, p = 0.637; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.47], t(451) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-7.34e-03, 0.26])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.12, 2.07], t(451) = 1.74, p = 0.082; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.37])

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.95e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.27, 11.98], t(451) = 63.67, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.54], t(451) = 0.12, p = 0.901; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.27])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.38], t(451) = 0.26, p = 0.797; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.19])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.74], t(451) = 1.05, p = 0.292; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.37])

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.62, 17.75], t(451) = 59.43, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.15], t(451) = 0.84, p = 0.400; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.94], t(451) = 1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-9.91e-03, 0.29])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.05], t(451) = 0.98, p = 0.326; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.33])

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(451) = 50.10, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.91], t(451) = 0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.77], t(451) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-6.13e-03, 0.26])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.84], t(451) = 0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.29])

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.37], t(451) = 46.39, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.20], t(451) = -1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.09])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.50], t(451) = 0.50, p = 0.618; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.21])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.16, 1.32], t(451) = 2.49, p = 0.013; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [0.07, 0.55])

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.78, 33.22], t(451) = 35.90, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.72, 1.14], t(451) = -1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.45, 95% CI [-2.67, -0.22], t(451) = -2.32, p = 0.020; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.27, -0.02])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.87, 1.67], t(451) = -0.11, p = 0.913; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.17])

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.93e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.87], t(451) = 53.92, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.13], t(451) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.75e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.10], t(451) = 1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.24])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.85, 1.04], t(451) = 0.20, p = 0.843; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.23])

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.07e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.50, 25.51], t(451) = 47.77, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.58, 2.26], t(451) = 1.16, p = 0.247; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.28], t(451) = 1.21, p = 0.228; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.22])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.94, 1.36], t(451) = 0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.24])

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.40, 20.92], t(451) = 30.58, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.15], t(451) = 1.50, p = 0.132; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.23, 95% CI [0.30, 2.15], t(451) = 2.60, p = 0.009; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.04, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.28, 1.40], t(451) = 0.08, p = 0.932; Std. beta = 8.08e-03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.19])

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.91e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.31], t(451) = 31.68, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.28], t(451) = 0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.93], t(451) = 1.78, p = 0.075; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.25])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.66], t(451) = -0.13, p = 0.897; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.18])

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.50e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.06, 16.19], t(451) = 27.84, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.77e-13, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.51], t(451) = -1.14e-12, p > .999; Std. beta = -8.00e-16, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.08, 1.52], t(451) = 1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.25])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.70, 1.62], t(451) = 0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.27])

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.32, 22.79], t(451) = 34.22, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.43, 2.07], t(451) = 0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [0.22, 2.01], t(451) = 2.43, p = 0.015; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [0.03, 0.29])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.42, 1.18], t(451) = -0.18, p = 0.856; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.17])

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.42, 16.94], t(451) = 41.75, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.83], t(451) = 1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-4.94e-03, 1.31], t(451) = 1.95, p = 0.052; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-1.13e-03, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.42], t(451) = 0.96, p = 0.335; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.33])

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.68, 13.66], t(451) = 52.60, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(451) = 2.10, p = 0.036; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.51])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.34], t(451) = -0.21, p = 0.835; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.12])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.94], t(451) = 1.33, p = 0.182; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.33])

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(451) = 58.93, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.18], t(451) = 0.97, p = 0.330; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.81], t(451) = 1.69, p = 0.092; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.26])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.89], t(451) = 0.81, p = 0.416; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.28])

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.98], t(451) = 42.20, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.51], t(451) = 1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.74], t(451) = 1.52, p = 0.128; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.23])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.76], t(451) = 0.50, p = 0.618; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.23])

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.11, 30.22], t(451) = 54.23, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.40, 2.58], t(451) = 1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.42], t(451) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-5.45e-03, 0.24])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.49], t(451) = 0.80, p = 0.422; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.25])

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.27, 29.49], t(451) = 34.01, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.49, 1.06], t(451) = -1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-1.84, 0.47], t(451) = -1.16, p = 0.247; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.05])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.26, 95% CI [-2.94, 0.41], t(451) = -1.47, p = 0.140; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.05])

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.97, 14.71], t(451) = 31.11, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.22, 2.24], t(451) = 1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.99], t(451) = 1.07, p = 0.286; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.20])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.47], t(451) = 1.13, p = 0.259; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.29])

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.62, 16.04], t(451) = 42.46, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [7.34e-03, 2.01], t(451) = 1.97, p = 0.048; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [1.81e-03, 0.50])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [0.02, 1.15], t(451) = 2.04, p = 0.041; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [5.71e-03, 0.28])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.05], t(451) = 0.56, p = 0.578; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.26])

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.66, 30.67], t(451) = 38.01, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.11, 4.14], t(451) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.48])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.16, 2.03], t(451) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.24])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.81, 2.37], t(451) = 0.96, p = 0.337; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.28])

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.99e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.52, 13.08], t(451) = 90.01, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.32], t(451) = -0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.20])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(451) = -0.88, p = 0.380; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.10])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.61], t(451) = 0.80, p = 0.426; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.38])

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.18e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.76, 14.96], t(451) = 46.52, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.58], t(451) = 1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [0.14, 1.31], t(451) = 2.43, p = 0.015; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [0.04, 0.38])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.81, 95% CI [-1.66, 0.04], t(451) = -1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.01])

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.89], t(451) = 34.75, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.51], t(451) = 0.87, p = 0.386; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.02, 1.23], t(451) = 1.90, p = 0.058; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-4.80e-03, 0.29])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.09], t(451) = 0.40, p = 0.690; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.26])

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.30, 28.72], t(451) = 44.55, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.90], t(451) = 1.36, p = 0.175; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.33, 95% CI [0.28, 2.38], t(451) = 2.48, p = 0.013; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [0.04, 0.34])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-2.13, 0.92], t(451) = -0.78, p = 0.435; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.13])

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.05, 19.64], t(451) = 46.49, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.65], t(451) = 0.92, p = 0.357; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [0.24, 1.48], t(451) = 2.71, p = 0.007; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [0.05, 0.33])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.87, 0.93], t(451) = 0.06, p = 0.950; Std. beta = 6.41e-03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.21])

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.92, 14.80], t(451) = 64.63, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.61], t(451) = -0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.23e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.65], t(451) = 0.91, p = 0.361; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.26])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.09], t(451) = 1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.44])

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.33], t(451) = 42.91, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.67], t(451) = -0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.10], t(451) = -1.57, p = 0.117; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.03])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.17, 0.32], t(451) = -1.12, p = 0.264; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.10])

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.78e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(451) = 32.00, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.12], t(451) = 0.49, p = 0.626; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.15], t(451) = -1.33, p = 0.182; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.04])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.29, 0.08], t(451) = -1.74, p = 0.082; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.02])

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.26e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(451) = 30.53, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(451) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.02], t(451) = -1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, 5.03e-03])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.97, 0.44], t(451) = -0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.12])

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.74e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(451) = 26.01, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.34], t(451) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.24], t(451) = -0.97, p = 0.332; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.07])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.03], t(451) = -1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.37, 9.30e-03])

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.25e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.45, 31.12], t(451) = 31.27, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.04, 3.15], t(451) = 0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.04, 95% CI [-2.26, 0.18], t(451) = -1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.02])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.49, 95% CI [-3.26, 0.28], t(451) = -1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.03])

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome	model	npar	AIC	BIC	logLik	deviance	Chisq	Df	p
recovery_stage_a	null	3	1,455.419	1,467.793	-724.709	1,449.419
recovery_stage_a	random	6	1,458.632	1,483.380	-723.316	1,446.632	2.787	3	0.426
recovery_stage_b	null	3	2,201.572	2,213.946	-1,097.786	2,195.572
recovery_stage_b	random	6	2,195.490	2,220.238	-1,091.745	2,183.490	12.082	3	0.007
ras_confidence	null	3	2,734.672	2,747.046	-1,364.336	2,728.672
ras_confidence	random	6	2,719.517	2,744.265	-1,353.758	2,707.517	21.156	3	0.000
ras_willingness	null	3	1,857.031	1,869.405	-925.516	1,851.031
ras_willingness	random	6	1,859.717	1,884.465	-923.859	1,847.717	3.314	3	0.346
ras_goal	null	3	2,259.905	2,272.279	-1,126.952	2,253.905
ras_goal	random	6	2,251.677	2,276.425	-1,119.838	2,239.677	14.228	3	0.003
ras_reliance	null	3	2,131.776	2,144.150	-1,062.888	2,125.776
ras_reliance	random	6	2,124.542	2,149.291	-1,056.271	2,112.542	13.234	3	0.004
ras_domination	null	3	2,024.355	2,036.729	-1,009.177	2,018.355
ras_domination	random	6	2,014.909	2,039.657	-1,001.454	2,002.909	15.446	3	0.001
symptom	null	3	3,206.235	3,218.609	-1,600.118	3,200.235
symptom	random	6	3,200.309	3,225.058	-1,594.155	3,188.309	11.926	3	0.008
slof_work	null	3	2,551.257	2,563.631	-1,272.628	2,545.257
slof_work	random	6	2,553.031	2,577.779	-1,270.515	2,541.031	4.226	3	0.238
slof_relationship	null	3	2,747.303	2,759.677	-1,370.652	2,741.303
slof_relationship	random	6	2,747.382	2,772.131	-1,367.691	2,735.382	5.921	3	0.116
satisfaction	null	3	2,937.544	2,949.918	-1,465.772	2,931.544
satisfaction	random	6	2,927.975	2,952.723	-1,457.987	2,915.975	15.569	3	0.001
mhc_emotional	null	3	2,339.384	2,351.758	-1,166.692	2,333.384
mhc_emotional	random	6	2,339.468	2,364.216	-1,163.734	2,327.468	5.916	3	0.116
mhc_social	null	3	2,787.506	2,799.880	-1,390.753	2,781.506
mhc_social	random	6	2,783.050	2,807.798	-1,385.525	2,771.050	10.456	3	0.015
mhc_psychological	null	3	2,909.260	2,921.634	-1,451.630	2,903.260
mhc_psychological	random	6	2,905.219	2,929.967	-1,446.610	2,893.219	10.041	3	0.018
resilisnce	null	3	2,535.210	2,547.584	-1,264.605	2,529.210
resilisnce	random	6	2,524.160	2,548.909	-1,256.080	2,512.160	17.050	3	0.001
social_provision	null	3	2,094.313	2,106.687	-1,044.157	2,088.313
social_provision	random	6	2,090.290	2,115.038	-1,039.145	2,078.290	10.023	3	0.018
els_value_living	null	3	2,210.973	2,223.348	-1,102.487	2,204.973
els_value_living	random	6	2,205.206	2,229.954	-1,096.603	2,193.206	11.767	3	0.008
els_life_fulfill	null	3	2,210.796	2,223.170	-1,102.398	2,204.796
els_life_fulfill	random	6	2,206.383	2,231.131	-1,097.192	2,194.383	10.413	3	0.015
els	null	3	2,750.598	2,762.972	-1,372.299	2,744.598
els	random	6	2,742.085	2,766.833	-1,365.042	2,730.085	14.514	3	0.002
social_connect	null	3	3,150.367	3,162.741	-1,572.184	3,144.367
social_connect	random	6	3,142.941	3,167.689	-1,565.471	3,130.941	13.426	3	0.004
shs_agency	null	3	2,598.847	2,611.221	-1,296.424	2,592.847
shs_agency	random	6	2,593.059	2,617.807	-1,290.529	2,581.059	11.789	3	0.008
shs_pathway	null	3	2,440.929	2,453.303	-1,217.464	2,434.929
shs_pathway	random	6	2,430.538	2,455.286	-1,209.269	2,418.538	16.391	3	0.001
shs	null	3	3,097.808	3,110.182	-1,545.904	3,091.808
shs	random	6	3,087.796	3,112.544	-1,537.898	3,075.796	16.012	3	0.001
esteem	null	3	1,669.739	1,682.113	-831.870	1,663.739
esteem	random	6	1,674.894	1,699.642	-831.447	1,662.894	0.845	3	0.839
mlq_search	null	3	2,353.350	2,365.724	-1,173.675	2,347.350
mlq_search	random	6	2,352.557	2,377.305	-1,170.278	2,340.557	6.794	3	0.079
mlq_presence	null	3	2,498.294	2,510.668	-1,246.147	2,492.294
mlq_presence	random	6	2,494.169	2,518.917	-1,241.085	2,482.169	10.125	3	0.018
mlq	null	3	2,953.526	2,965.900	-1,473.763	2,947.526
mlq	random	6	2,950.561	2,975.309	-1,469.281	2,938.561	8.965	3	0.030
empower	null	3	2,539.793	2,552.168	-1,266.897	2,533.793
empower	random	6	2,530.812	2,555.560	-1,259.406	2,518.812	14.982	3	0.002
ismi_resistance	null	3	2,068.299	2,080.673	-1,031.149	2,062.299
ismi_resistance	random	6	2,065.464	2,090.212	-1,026.732	2,053.464	8.835	3	0.032
ismi_discrimation	null	3	2,246.840	2,259.214	-1,120.420	2,240.840
ismi_discrimation	random	6	2,240.828	2,265.576	-1,114.414	2,228.828	12.012	3	0.007
sss_affective	null	3	2,316.703	2,329.077	-1,155.351	2,310.703
sss_affective	random	6	2,307.717	2,332.465	-1,147.859	2,295.717	14.985	3	0.002
sss_behavior	null	3	2,339.126	2,351.500	-1,166.563	2,333.126
sss_behavior	random	6	2,333.632	2,358.380	-1,160.816	2,321.632	11.495	3	0.009
sss_cognitive	null	3	2,339.744	2,352.118	-1,166.872	2,333.744
sss_cognitive	random	6	2,332.684	2,357.432	-1,160.342	2,320.684	13.060	3	0.005
sss	null	3	3,246.883	3,259.257	-1,620.442	3,240.883
sss	random	6	3,235.532	3,260.280	-1,611.766	3,223.532	17.351	3	0.001

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome	time	control			treatment			between
outcome	time	n	estimate	within es	n	estimate	within es	p	es
recovery_stage_a	1st	125	3.20 ± 1.21		125	3.07 ± 1.21		0.405	0.129
recovery_stage_a	2nd	109	3.23 ± 1.21	-0.029	98	3.29 ± 1.20	-0.222	0.702	-0.064
recovery_stage_b	1st	125	17.88 ± 3.00		125	17.80 ± 3.00		0.833	0.045
recovery_stage_b	2nd	109	17.75 ± 2.92	0.072	98	18.64 ± 2.86	-0.472	0.028	-0.499
ras_confidence	1st	125	29.69 ± 5.62		125	30.02 ± 5.62		0.637	-0.117
ras_confidence	2nd	109	30.40 ± 5.42	-0.249	98	31.71 ± 5.28	-0.587	0.080	-0.455
ras_willingness	1st	125	11.62 ± 2.04		125	11.66 ± 2.04		0.901	-0.025
ras_willingness	2nd	109	11.67 ± 1.99	-0.034	98	11.96 ± 1.96	-0.238	0.290	-0.229
ras_goal	1st	125	17.18 ± 3.23		125	17.53 ± 3.23		0.401	-0.187
ras_goal	2nd	109	17.64 ± 3.14	-0.245	98	18.33 ± 3.07	-0.436	0.108	-0.377
ras_reliance	1st	125	13.14 ± 2.93		125	13.33 ± 2.93		0.620	-0.123
ras_reliance	2nd	109	13.52 ± 2.83	-0.251	98	13.97 ± 2.76	-0.431	0.244	-0.303
ras_domination	1st	125	9.95 ± 2.40		125	9.56 ± 2.40		0.197	0.256
ras_domination	2nd	109	10.05 ± 2.34	-0.067	98	10.40 ± 2.31	-0.549	0.286	-0.226
symptom	1st	125	31.50 ± 9.81		125	30.21 ± 9.81		0.300	0.278
symptom	2nd	109	30.05 ± 9.42	0.312	98	28.66 ± 9.15	0.333	0.284	0.299
slof_work	1st	125	22.06 ± 4.58		125	22.06 ± 4.58		0.989	0.003
slof_work	2nd	109	22.51 ± 4.43	-0.180	98	22.60 ± 4.32	-0.219	0.886	-0.035
slof_relationship	1st	125	24.50 ± 5.74		125	25.34 ± 5.74		0.248	-0.279
slof_relationship	2nd	109	24.99 ± 5.54	-0.162	98	26.04 ± 5.40	-0.232	0.168	-0.349
satisfaction	1st	125	19.66 ± 7.19		125	21.03 ± 7.19		0.134	-0.390
satisfaction	2nd	109	20.89 ± 6.92	-0.349	98	22.32 ± 6.72	-0.366	0.134	-0.407
mhc_emotional	1st	125	10.65 ± 3.76		125	11.00 ± 3.76		0.459	-0.190
mhc_emotional	2nd	109	11.09 ± 3.62	-0.239	98	11.40 ± 3.52	-0.214	0.539	-0.164
mhc_social	1st	125	15.13 ± 6.08		125	15.13 ± 6.08		1.000	0.000
mhc_social	2nd	109	15.85 ± 5.85	-0.237	98	16.31 ± 5.70	-0.387	0.570	-0.150
mhc_psychological	1st	125	21.55 ± 7.04		125	21.87 ± 7.04		0.720	-0.094
mhc_psychological	2nd	109	22.66 ± 6.77	-0.327	98	22.86 ± 6.58	-0.292	0.830	-0.059
resilisnce	1st	125	16.18 ± 4.33		125	16.94 ± 4.33		0.166	-0.303
resilisnce	2nd	109	16.83 ± 4.21	-0.261	98	18.06 ± 4.12	-0.448	0.034	-0.490
social_provision	1st	125	13.17 ± 2.80		125	13.91 ± 2.80		0.036	-0.508
social_provision	2nd	109	13.13 ± 2.70	0.028	98	14.25 ± 2.64	-0.232	0.003	-0.768
els_value_living	1st	125	16.76 ± 3.18		125	17.15 ± 3.18		0.330	-0.237
els_value_living	2nd	109	17.13 ± 3.07	-0.226	98	17.79 ± 2.99	-0.385	0.122	-0.395
els_life_fulfill	1st	125	12.41 ± 3.29		125	13.10 ± 3.29		0.095	-0.442
els_life_fulfill	2nd	109	12.73 ± 3.16	-0.205	98	13.58 ± 3.07	-0.302	0.051	-0.539
els	1st	125	29.17 ± 6.01		125	30.26 ± 6.01		0.154	-0.395
els	2nd	109	29.86 ± 5.77	-0.252	98	31.38 ± 5.59	-0.408	0.055	-0.551
social_connect	1st	125	27.88 ± 9.17		125	26.66 ± 9.17		0.295	0.277
social_connect	2nd	109	27.20 ± 8.81	0.156	98	24.72 ± 8.56	0.443	0.041	0.565
shs_agency	1st	125	13.84 ± 4.97		125	14.85 ± 4.97		0.110	-0.413
shs_agency	2nd	109	14.19 ± 4.79	-0.143	98	15.73 ± 4.65	-0.363	0.019	-0.633
shs_pathway	1st	125	15.33 ± 4.04		125	16.34 ± 4.04		0.049	-0.470
shs_pathway	2nd	109	15.92 ± 3.90	-0.274	98	17.16 ± 3.81	-0.382	0.021	-0.578
shs	1st	125	29.17 ± 8.58		125	31.18 ± 8.58		0.064	-0.484
shs	2nd	109	30.10 ± 8.25	-0.224	98	32.90 ± 8.02	-0.411	0.014	-0.671
esteem	1st	125	12.80 ± 1.59		125	12.73 ± 1.59		0.721	0.063
esteem	2nd	109	12.67 ± 1.57	0.117	98	12.77 ± 1.55	-0.036	0.632	-0.090
mlq_search	1st	125	14.36 ± 3.45		125	15.08 ± 3.45		0.100	-0.322
mlq_search	2nd	109	15.09 ± 3.38	-0.325	98	15.00 ± 3.33	0.037	0.848	0.040
mlq_presence	1st	125	13.15 ± 4.23		125	13.62 ± 4.23		0.387	-0.194
mlq_presence	2nd	109	13.76 ± 4.10	-0.254	98	14.41 ± 4.02	-0.332	0.251	-0.272
mlq	1st	125	27.51 ± 6.90		125	28.70 ± 6.90		0.176	-0.296
mlq	2nd	109	28.84 ± 6.71	-0.333	98	29.42 ± 6.57	-0.181	0.532	-0.144
empower	1st	125	18.85 ± 4.53		125	19.38 ± 4.53		0.358	-0.223
empower	2nd	109	19.71 ± 4.38	-0.363	98	20.27 ± 4.27	-0.376	0.355	-0.235
ismi_resistance	1st	125	14.36 ± 2.48		125	14.35 ± 2.48		0.980	0.005
ismi_resistance	2nd	109	14.57 ± 2.44	-0.122	98	15.01 ± 2.41	-0.388	0.192	-0.261
ismi_discrimation	1st	125	11.79 ± 3.07		125	11.70 ± 3.07		0.821	0.045
ismi_discrimation	2nd	109	11.38 ± 3.00	0.209	98	10.87 ± 2.95	0.425	0.218	0.261
sss_affective	1st	125	10.40 ± 3.63		125	10.62 ± 3.63		0.626	-0.125
sss_affective	2nd	109	10.08 ± 3.50	0.179	98	9.70 ± 3.40	0.518	0.427	0.214
sss_behavior	1st	125	10.18 ± 3.73		125	10.10 ± 3.73		0.865	0.043
sss_behavior	2nd	109	9.71 ± 3.59	0.253	98	9.36 ± 3.49	0.397	0.483	0.187
sss_cognitive	1st	125	8.71 ± 3.74		125	9.12 ± 3.74		0.390	-0.223
sss_cognitive	2nd	109	8.47 ± 3.60	0.130	98	8.22 ± 3.50	0.493	0.604	0.140
sss	1st	125	29.29 ± 10.47		125	29.84 ± 10.47		0.677	-0.119
sss	2nd	109	28.25 ± 10.03	0.225	98	27.31 ± 9.71	0.548	0.495	0.203

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(413.04) = -0.83, p = 0.405, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.17)

2st

t(435.22) = 0.38, p = 0.702, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.39)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(331.91) = -0.21, p = 0.833, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)

2st

t(374.40) = 2.21, p = 0.028, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.10 to 1.68)

ras_confidence

1st

t(308.17) = 0.47, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.74)

2st

t(346.89) = 1.76, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.16 to 2.77)

ras_willingness

1st

t(341.15) = 0.12, p = 0.901, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.54)

2st

t(383.66) = 1.06, p = 0.290, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.83)

ras_goal

1st

t(324.81) = 0.84, p = 0.401, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.15)

2st

t(366.76) = 1.61, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.55)

ras_reliance

1st

t(308.04) = 0.50, p = 0.620, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.91)

2st

t(346.72) = 1.17, p = 0.244, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.22)

ras_domination

1st

t(346.45) = -1.29, p = 0.197, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.20)

2st

t(388.65) = 1.07, p = 0.286, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.98)

symptom

1st

t(298.72) = -1.04, p = 0.300, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-3.73 to 1.15)

2st

t(334.29) = -1.07, p = 0.284, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-3.93 to 1.15)

slof_work

1st

t(317.10) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.13)

2st

t(357.90) = 0.14, p = 0.886, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.11 to 1.28)

slof_relationship

1st

t(311.92) = 1.16, p = 0.248, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)

2st

t(351.62) = 1.38, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.45 to 2.55)

satisfaction

1st

t(302.40) = 1.50, p = 0.134, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.16)

2st

t(339.32) = 1.50, p = 0.134, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.44 to 3.29)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(303.95) = 0.74, p = 0.459, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.29)

2st

t(341.38) = 0.61, p = 0.539, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.67 to 1.28)

mhc_social

1st

t(305.43) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.51)

2st

t(343.33) = 0.57, p = 0.570, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.12 to 2.04)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(301.18) = 0.36, p = 0.720, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.07)

2st

t(337.66) = 0.21, p = 0.830, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.63 to 2.03)

resilisnce

1st

t(327.43) = 1.39, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.84)

2st

t(369.63) = 2.12, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.09 to 2.37)

social_provision

1st

t(311.38) = 2.10, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.44)

2st

t(350.95) = 3.03, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (0.39 to 1.85)

els_value_living

1st

t(310.71) = 0.97, p = 0.330, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.18)

2st

t(350.11) = 1.55, p = 0.122, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.48)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(300.31) = 1.67, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.51)

2st

t(336.48) = 1.96, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.00 to 1.70)

els

1st

t(295.46) = 1.43, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.58)

2st

t(329.71) = 1.92, p = 0.055, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.04 to 3.07)

social_connect

1st

t(300.12) = -1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-3.50 to 1.07)

2st

t(336.22) = -2.05, p = 0.041, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-4.85 to -0.10)

shs_agency

1st

t(303.05) = 1.60, p = 0.110, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.23 to 2.25)

2st

t(340.18) = 2.35, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (0.25 to 2.84)

shs_pathway

1st

t(313.67) = 1.97, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.00 to 2.01)

2st

t(353.78) = 2.31, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.19 to 2.29)

shs

1st

t(301.83) = 1.86, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.12 to 4.15)

2st

t(338.55) = 2.47, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (0.57 to 5.02)

esteem

1st

t(376.66) = -0.36, p = 0.721, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.47 to 0.32)

2st

t(413.08) = 0.48, p = 0.632, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.53)

mlq_search

1st

t(350.07) = 1.65, p = 0.100, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)

2st

t(391.93) = -0.19, p = 0.848, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.83)

mlq_presence

1st

t(322.96) = 0.87, p = 0.387, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.52)

2st

t(364.69) = 1.15, p = 0.251, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.76)

mlq

1st

t(327.60) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.90)

2st

t(369.81) = 0.63, p = 0.532, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.24 to 2.39)

empower

1st

t(311.31) = 0.92, p = 0.358, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.66)

2st

t(350.86) = 0.93, p = 0.355, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.74)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(360.70) = -0.03, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.61)

2st

t(400.97) = 1.31, p = 0.192, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.10)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(346.07) = -0.23, p = 0.821, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.68)

2st

t(388.30) = -1.23, p = 0.218, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.33 to 0.30)

sss_affective

1st

t(303.52) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)

2st

t(340.81) = -0.80, p = 0.427, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.33 to 0.56)

sss_behavior

1st

t(304.54) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.85)

2st

t(342.16) = -0.70, p = 0.483, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.31 to 0.62)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(302.68) = 0.86, p = 0.390, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)

2st

t(339.69) = -0.52, p = 0.604, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.23 to 0.72)

sss

1st

t(291.77) = 0.42, p = 0.677, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.06 to 3.16)

2st

t(324.36) = -0.68, p = 0.495, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-3.64 to 1.76)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(233.45) = 1.61, p = 0.217, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.05 to 0.49)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(220.48) = 3.37, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.35 to 1.33)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(216.51) = 4.17, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.89 to 2.48)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(221.97) = 1.70, p = 0.180, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.05 to 0.65)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(219.32) = 3.11, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.29 to 1.31)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(216.49) = 3.06, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.06)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(222.81) = 3.93, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (0.42 to 1.26)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(214.87) = -2.36, p = 0.038, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-2.83 to -0.26)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(218.03) = 1.55, p = 0.243, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.23)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(217.16) = 1.65, p = 0.202, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.53)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(215.51) = 2.59, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.31 to 2.26)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(215.78) = 1.52, p = 0.262, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.12 to 0.91)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(216.04) = 2.75, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.33 to 2.02)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(215.30) = 2.07, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.94)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(219.75) = 3.19, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.43 to 1.82)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(217.06) = 1.65, p = 0.202, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.07 to 0.75)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(216.95) = 2.73, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.18 to 1.10)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(215.15) = 2.14, p = 0.067, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.04 to 0.91)

els

1st vs 2st

t(214.29) = 2.89, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.36 to 1.89)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(215.11) = -3.14, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-3.16 to -0.72)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(215.62) = 2.58, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.21 to 1.56)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(217.45) = 2.72, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.41)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(215.41) = 2.92, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.56 to 2.87)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(227.56) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.36)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(223.39) = -0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.53)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(219.01) = 2.36, p = 0.038, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.13 to 1.45)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(219.77) = 1.29, p = 0.395, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.83)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(217.05) = 2.67, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.55)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(225.06) = 2.78, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.12)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(222.75) = -3.04, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-1.37 to -0.29)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(215.71) = -3.67, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-1.42 to -0.43)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(215.88) = -2.82, p = 0.011, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.25 to -0.22)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(215.56) = -3.50, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.41 to -0.39)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(213.62) = -3.87, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-3.82 to -1.24)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(222.90) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.29)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(214.39) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.60 to 0.34)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(211.93) = 1.85, p = 0.130, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.48)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(215.33) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.38)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(213.67) = 1.83, p = 0.137, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.03 to 0.94)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(211.92) = 1.87, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.02 to 0.77)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(215.86) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.30 to 0.51)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(210.92) = -2.32, p = 0.043, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-2.67 to -0.22)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(212.87) = 1.34, p = 0.362, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.21 to 1.11)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(212.33) = 1.21, p = 0.458, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.28)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(211.32) = 2.60, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (0.30 to 2.16)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(211.48) = 1.78, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.05 to 0.94)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(211.64) = 1.76, p = 0.158, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.53)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(211.19) = 2.43, p = 0.032, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.21 to 2.01)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(213.93) = 1.94, p = 0.106, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.32)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(212.27) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.35)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(212.20) = 1.69, p = 0.186, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.81)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(211.09) = 1.52, p = 0.258, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.09 to 0.74)

els

1st vs 2st

t(210.57) = 1.87, p = 0.125, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.43)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(211.07) = -1.16, p = 0.497, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.85 to 0.48)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(211.39) = 1.07, p = 0.574, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.00)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(212.51) = 2.04, p = 0.085, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (0.02 to 1.16)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(211.26) = 1.67, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.04)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(218.93) = -0.88, p = 0.763, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.17)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(216.23) = 2.43, p = 0.032, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.14 to 1.32)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(213.47) = 1.90, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.24)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(213.95) = 2.48, p = 0.028, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.27 to 2.39)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(212.26) = 2.71, p = 0.015, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.49)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(217.30) = 0.91, p = 0.724, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.24 to 0.65)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(215.83) = -1.57, p = 0.238, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-0.93 to 0.11)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(211.44) = -1.33, p = 0.367, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-0.80 to 0.15)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(211.55) = -1.88, p = 0.122, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.96 to 0.02)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(211.35) = -0.97, p = 0.666, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.72 to 0.25)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(210.17) = -1.67, p = 0.191, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.27 to 0.18)

Pathway Summary

Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Measurement

Table

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Text

Likelihood ratio tests

Post hoc analysis

Table

Between group

Within treatment group

Within control group

Plot

Clinical significance